Net Neutrality – PBS NOW Part 2/2
January 25th, 2010 | by admin |
Is the wild west culture of the Internet about to become a thing of the past? Big business is staking its claim on the information superhighway, lobbying Congress for an exclusive faster lane, which consumers could end up paying for. This week on NOW we look at a major battle brewing in Washington D.C. over the future of the Internet.
We follow the story of Blip.tv, an ambitious video-streaming startup. They’re fighting for a corner of the Internet marketplace in the midst of a battle over so-called ‘net neutrality’ — the idea that all Internet content and websites are given the same access to audiences and customers.
If telecommunication giants have their way, companies like Blip.tv might be forced to compete in a marketplace wherein firms with large coffers can buy access to greater bandwidth and faster Internet speeds, leaving sites who can’t afford to pay in the slow lane.
Craig Aaron of Free Press, a media watchdog group, says big telecom companies have declared open season on ‘Net neutrality.’ He’s afraid these companies will dictate how we use the Internet.
“I think one of the beauties of the Internet is that it’s been open to views across the political spectrum. And if you hand the control of the information so that some can be preferred over others, you’re going to be handing that control to the big media companies that already control our television, airwaves, radio, you name it,” Aaron says.
For their part, telecom companies argue that a fast lane on the Internet for those willing to pay will allow them to make a return on their multibillion-dollar investment in broadband infrastructure. At present, companies such as Verizon and AT&T only charge for access to the Internet, but make virtually no money from content.
“It’s just, by the way, the same reason why we take 18 wheeler semi-trailers and make them pay more in federal highway taxes than someone who drives their family in a mini-van: because they are putting more load on the infrastructure and therefore should pay a higher rate,” says Mike McCurry, head of Hands Off the Internet.
His group, backed by a number of telecom companies, says that many web companies are making billions off the Internet but are not willing to pitch in to upgrade its infrastructure. The telecom companies have launched an aggressive, multi-million dollar advertising campaign against web giants such as Google and Amazon arguing “they don’t want to pay for anything.”
Those who support net neutrality — including a broad coalition of consumer groups, higher education organizations, special interests, and Internet companies — say the telecoms just want to increase their profits. They fear that the proposed two-tiered Internet would kill a democratic marketplace wherein small businesses compete on an equal footing with giants of commerce.
Duration : 0:7:25
[youtube v848i8lQkMI]
25 Responses to “Net Neutrality – PBS NOW Part 2/2”
By jyoung0000 on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
Your really naive!
Your really naive!
By afridge13 on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
OMG. The “CEO’s” of …
OMG. The “CEO’s” of the big bad corporations are going to build their models based on, oh no, “DISCRIMINATION”!!!! Agghhhhhh, this can’t be happening!!! THE CORPORATIONS WILL CONTROL US!!!
By darkblood626 on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
If net neutrality …
If net neutrality exists now and there fighting to maintain it as it was weaved into the foundation of the internets creation then WHY DO I GET ((THIS VIDIO IS NOT AVALABLE IN YOUR CONTRY))) on you tube And 404 error randomly ???
By agun17 on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
Like ted stevens …
Like ted stevens said: The internet is not a big truck!
By gotilk on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
The truck on a road …
The truck on a road analogy is utterly stupid. Companies like google are not TRUCKS which go from point a to point b. And the internet is a push-pull medium, not just user pull and provider push like TV. None of us are fooled, fools.
By kangalanatolian on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
We have more to …
We have more to fear from government regulation.
I am using a satellite internet service right now. It requires no telephone interface, just a two way satellite dish that cost me 300 bucks. The ISP monopoly that is implied here does not exist.
We do not need the ultimate monopoly of government to protect us from a pretend oligarchy.
By AllisonBookworm on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
Ron Paul opposes …
Ron Paul opposes net neutrality.
By AllisonBookworm on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
ok… wrong. Thanks …
ok… wrong. Thanks for perpetuating the same old false dichotomy.
By fearonism on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
so wahts your …
so wahts your position on that? should…we give up our freedoms to increase things by a few kbs?
ok…right
By Shadyhunter04 on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
No it’s not fast …
No it’s not fast enough. There are countries that have 10MBs as the norm. Our is as outdated as the 25kbs piece of broadband they have in Mexico compared to the rest of the developed world.
By Shakaila32 on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
Isn’t the internet …
Isn’t the internet fast enough? I can get streaming high quality video? Why would we need something faster?
-X
By ariakokoschka on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
Well, they wouldn’t …
Well, they wouldn’t be able to sort of “block” the content of your website but surely, they can manipulate their “fast” lane to the advantage of big players who literally paying more for better connection which in turn would result in competitions to be unfairly undermind. So at the end, you wouldn’t be able to get your “idea” out to create the next Google for example.
By KobyBrandt on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
Yes, the RON PAUL …
Yes, the RON PAUL REVOLUTION!
Do vote for RON PAUL in the PRIMARIES (very important to do this — TO VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES — this coming January).
Dr. Paul definitely wants to keep (us and) the internet TOTALLY free…
By Brawk on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
Time for Internet 2 …
Time for Internet 2! And they can stay the **** out of that!!!
By trudrewski on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
Since we americans …
Since we americans are apparantly incapable of voting for politicians who are not corrupt, the sooner we all accept Bush as our own personal savior and allow him into our phone calls and internet, the sooner Jesus will come.
By 5LOWPL4Y on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
Coming soon: …
Coming soon: BRANDED INTERNET. For example, though “AT&T” or “Comcast” may have a network in your neighborhood, soon you will enjoy choice of branded internet from a different company through their network…just like IPTV. The biggest obstacle is getting our local networks built BIG enough to deal with the bandwidth. It needs to happen FAST. Big questions…How to get it done?…Who PAYS to build it? If Gov’t gets involved = FEES FOR ALL (on internet bill)…constant bickering…slow build.
By 5LOWPL4Y on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
Once we let …
Once we let corporations into the internet in the form of advertising, we allowed them to change the internet from the wonderful exchange of information place into the practical exchange of commerce space. We cannot go back, the corporations will never allow it. Our gov’t looks toward balancing corporate gain with public interest; but in reality always seems to bow to the former, for eventually (they hope) the public will benefit. In the internet arena the battle was lost long ago.
By L33tsaber on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
PBS is brilliant at …
PBS is brilliant at explaining things. I’m going to make my dad watch this report so he understands why I fully support Net Neutrality.
By iridis on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
If its just a …
If its just a faster connection for the biggest companies, I can’t see what harm it could cause. It would just mean that they cannot go any further than that, they cannot have any control over the information on the internet.
By 264GL on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
Thank you …
Thank you stephenjudge.
By tom2215 on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
this is a true …
this is a true thing that happens! its not a chain letter! its kinda scary at first but it really works!! paste this message into 3 comments and press ALT F4 and your crushes name will appear on the screen!!! its soo wierd!
By baddmuthafword on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
if the FCC is there …
if the FCC is there to protect us then we’re all fucked
By Starcutter20 on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
not if the phone …
not if the phone companies laws pass
By IrrigatedPancake on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
it says the FCC is …
it says the FCC is there to prevent someone from trying to control the internet.
By kuemmet on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
What did Jefferson …
What did Jefferson say, “A revolution is good for a country every now and then”, or something along those lines.